解读证交会的新撤销权力

R. Ryan, Matthew H. Baughman, C. J. Lawrence, Aaron W. Lipson, Richard H. Walker, Jessica Rapoport, Katie Barry, Scott Hiers
{"title":"解读证交会的新撤销权力","authors":"R. Ryan, Matthew H. Baughman, C. J. Lawrence, Aaron W. Lipson, Richard H. Walker, Jessica Rapoport, Katie Barry, Scott Hiers","doi":"10.1108/JOIC-02-2021-0008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nTo analyze the impact of recent legislation that amended the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to expressly empower the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to seek disgorgement in federal district court proceedings and to codify applicable statutes of limitations.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThis article provides an overview of the authors’ prior work analyzing courts’ treatment of SEC disgorgement and summarizes how the scope of the remedy has evolved since Kokesh v. SEC (2017). Then, the article analyzes the changes to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 contained in Section 6501 the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which statutorily empowered the SEC to seek and obtain disgorgement in federal court actions. Finally, the authors discuss the impact of the legislation on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Kokesh and Liu v. SEC (2020).\n\n\nFindings\nThe availability and appropriateness of SEC disgorgement have been the subject of vigorous debate. Just as courts began to iron out the contours of SEC disgorgement in the wake of Kokesh and Liu, Congress intervened by granting to the SEC explicit statutory authority to seek a remedy traditionally obtained at equity. In passing this legislation, Congress answered some questions that remained after Liu but also raised many new ones. These new questions will likely take years to resolve through subsequent litigation and potentially additional legislation.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nOriginal, practical analysis and guidance from experienced lawyers in financial services regulatory and enforcement practices, many of whom have previously worked in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.\n","PeriodicalId":399186,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Investment Compliance","volume":"96 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Unpacking the SEC’s new disgorgement powers\",\"authors\":\"R. Ryan, Matthew H. Baughman, C. J. Lawrence, Aaron W. Lipson, Richard H. Walker, Jessica Rapoport, Katie Barry, Scott Hiers\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/JOIC-02-2021-0008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nTo analyze the impact of recent legislation that amended the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to expressly empower the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to seek disgorgement in federal district court proceedings and to codify applicable statutes of limitations.\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nThis article provides an overview of the authors’ prior work analyzing courts’ treatment of SEC disgorgement and summarizes how the scope of the remedy has evolved since Kokesh v. SEC (2017). Then, the article analyzes the changes to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 contained in Section 6501 the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which statutorily empowered the SEC to seek and obtain disgorgement in federal court actions. Finally, the authors discuss the impact of the legislation on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Kokesh and Liu v. SEC (2020).\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nThe availability and appropriateness of SEC disgorgement have been the subject of vigorous debate. Just as courts began to iron out the contours of SEC disgorgement in the wake of Kokesh and Liu, Congress intervened by granting to the SEC explicit statutory authority to seek a remedy traditionally obtained at equity. In passing this legislation, Congress answered some questions that remained after Liu but also raised many new ones. These new questions will likely take years to resolve through subsequent litigation and potentially additional legislation.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nOriginal, practical analysis and guidance from experienced lawyers in financial services regulatory and enforcement practices, many of whom have previously worked in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":399186,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Investment Compliance\",\"volume\":\"96 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Investment Compliance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/JOIC-02-2021-0008\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Investment Compliance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/JOIC-02-2021-0008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的分析修订1934年《证券交易法》的最新立法的影响,该立法明确授权美国证券交易委员会(SEC)在联邦地区法院诉讼中寻求追讨,并编纂适用的诉讼时效法规。本文概述了作者之前分析法院对SEC分类的处理的工作,并总结了自Kokesh诉SEC(2017)以来补救措施的范围是如何演变的。然后,本文分析了2021年国防授权法案(NDAA)第6501条中对1934年“证券交易法”的修改,该法案在法律上授权SEC在联邦法院诉讼中寻求并获得撤销。最后,作者讨论了立法对最高法院在Kokesh和Liu诉SEC案(2020)中判决的影响。美国证券交易委员会拆分的有效性和适当性一直是激烈辩论的主题。在科凯什和刘案之后,正当法院开始厘清SEC的股权分割时,国会进行了干预,授予SEC明确的法定权力,以寻求传统上以衡平法获得的救济。通过这项立法,国会回答了刘之后遗留下来的一些问题,但也提出了许多新的问题。这些新问题可能需要数年时间才能通过随后的诉讼和可能的额外立法来解决。原创性/价值来自金融服务监管和执法实践中经验丰富的律师的原创性、实用性分析和指导,其中许多律师此前曾在美国证券交易委员会执法部门工作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Unpacking the SEC’s new disgorgement powers
Purpose To analyze the impact of recent legislation that amended the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to expressly empower the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to seek disgorgement in federal district court proceedings and to codify applicable statutes of limitations. Design/methodology/approach This article provides an overview of the authors’ prior work analyzing courts’ treatment of SEC disgorgement and summarizes how the scope of the remedy has evolved since Kokesh v. SEC (2017). Then, the article analyzes the changes to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 contained in Section 6501 the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which statutorily empowered the SEC to seek and obtain disgorgement in federal court actions. Finally, the authors discuss the impact of the legislation on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Kokesh and Liu v. SEC (2020). Findings The availability and appropriateness of SEC disgorgement have been the subject of vigorous debate. Just as courts began to iron out the contours of SEC disgorgement in the wake of Kokesh and Liu, Congress intervened by granting to the SEC explicit statutory authority to seek a remedy traditionally obtained at equity. In passing this legislation, Congress answered some questions that remained after Liu but also raised many new ones. These new questions will likely take years to resolve through subsequent litigation and potentially additional legislation. Originality/value Original, practical analysis and guidance from experienced lawyers in financial services regulatory and enforcement practices, many of whom have previously worked in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信